Gujarat HC Upholds Forest Department Daily Wager’s Reinstatement After State Failed To Produce Work Records

The respondent-workman challenged the termination of his daily-wage employment in June 2012, asserting that he had completed 240 days of service.

The Labour Court, Godhra, partly allowed Reference (T) No. 7 of 2016 on 2 July 2024, finding the retrenchment illegal and ordering reinstatement without back wages or consequential benefits, with costs of Rs. 5,000.

The State challenged that award, arguing that the workman had not completed 240 days in the relevant period, that the Labour Court had wrongly drawn an adverse inference, and that the workman had stopped presenting himself for work.

The workman submitted that the State had not produced the underlying muster roll or attendance records.

Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines “continuous service”: subsection (1) includes service uninterrupted except for specified interruptions, while subsection (2) provides a deemed-continuity test based on the prescribed days of work when uninterrupted service is not established.

The Court relied on R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106, in considering the workman’s evidentiary burden and the drawing of an adverse inference where the employer fails to produce relevant employment records.

The Court also applied the principle that interruptions not attributable to the workman—including cessation of work where the employer cannot provide work—do not necessarily break continuous service.

The workman had specifically asserted in his claim and affidavit that he had worked 240 days in each year until he was not permitted to work in June 2012.

The State did not produce the muster roll, wage register or attendance register, relying instead on a computer printout of an attendance abstract.

Applying R.M. Yellatti, the Court held that the Labour Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference from the State’s failure to produce the underlying records.

It further reasoned that service interruptions not attributable to the workman could be counted for purposes of continuous service under Section 25B.

Accordingly, it found no basis to disturb the Labour Court’s finding of illegal retrenchment.

The connected Civil Application No. 1 of 2026 was disposed of as no longer surviving.